Re: Kannel is suffering

If we were to implement official protocol standards, we must make 
difference between
genuine optional (used by one/some protocol) or things common with all 
protocols, and
needed by users of all protocols. Last ones *must* be handled by 
abstraction (we must
maintain all protocols, and without coding everything 12 times), in 
former case abstraction
is useful.

Message identification is obviously necessary for all protocols, for 
delivery reports. This
is way I called for abstraction here. This has nothing to do with 
conservatism, I want only
avoid duplicate (many times over) work

An example how to do this:
a) only smsc knows how message identification is generated. Outside, id 
is just a given
string.
b) how smsc constructs depends on configuration. Configuration variable 
message-
identification lists fields used:
For instance, with SMPP you can write:
        message-identification = msgid
But with other protocols you cant do better than:
        message-identification = timestamp, from-number, to-number
c) If you do not want delivery reports at all, say
        message-identifcation = none

I know that somebody will say "my boss want support for SMPP, he do not 
care a s*t of
others".  But consider this: with abstraction a bugfix in one protocol 
will fix other proto-
cols, without it all protocols will be fixed separately. Your boss will 
understand this, if
he has ever coded more than few lines.

So, Jörgen, can start implementation of all protocol features by 
separating optional and
common ones ?

Aarno

On 11.2.2005, at 01:12, Stipe Tolj wrote:

> Jørgen Thomsen wrote:
>> OK. Here is one practical issue, which deliberately has been turned 
>> down: implementation of complete official protocol standards.
>
> ok. This is the "utopia" we are looking to gain. But how to achieve it 
> in a practical abstraction and real world?
>
> Now, I don't want to be picky. But it's alway easy to put critics 
> about "present states". That's not enough. As it was never for real 
> life problems and issues. Pragmatic thinkers of this world do not only 
> state the lacking of present states, they also imply on how (at least 
> may be) a better solution is to be drawn.
>
> So, how about giving a concret example on how you would do certain 
> issues?
>
> Stipe
>
> mailto:stolj_{at}_wapme.de
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Wapme Systems AG
>
> Vogelsanger Weg 80
> 40470 Düsseldorf, NRW, Germany
>
> phone: +49.211.74845.0
> fax: +49.211.74845.299
>
> mailto:info_{at}_wapme-systems.de
> http://www.wapme-systems.de/
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>